I just learned, from an Iraqi speaker named Raed, there's no civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. It's between nationalists who want a whole Iraq, and a minority of separatists. It would be like if an Iraqi news agcy said the U.S. Civil War was between Catholics and Protestants, or between whites and blacks. Stupid. It was a war of ideas and economics, not race or religion.

No, the Iraq internal conflict is political. Who wants an ethnically divided Iraq? Maliki and the unelected executive branch of Shiites Sunnis Kurds and Christians. Al-Qaeda wants a separatist Sunni middle. A minority of Southern separatists backed (bribed) by the US military (offered their own "Shiiastan"). Israel. Iran, apparently. The US ruling elite, with their designs on oil hegemony (Brzezinski - Grand Chessboard).

Who wants a united Iraq? Most of the legislature and the vast majority of the people. Al-Sadr wants a united & unified & stable Iraq. The reason for attacking Basra was there are elections coming up, and the separatists can't win at the polls. So they tried to murder the opposition.

Maliki recently said that Sadr is a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda. Apparently, some American journalists and public were 'confused' by this remark. Well, Al-Q wants the same political outcome as Maliki, and same as the US, a separatist Sunni center region in Iraq. Al-Sadr wants the opposite result, NO separatism, neither Sunni nor Shiite. (and some people thought it "silly" that Al-Qaeda is a US proxy)

(Also, Malaki himself is from an Iranian party. Raed also pointed out that the "Sunni Government" of Saddam Hussein had some 60% Shiite membership. I didn't know that. This is NOT battle that's about a religious or sectarian division. It's not merely that sectarian strife has been 'overplayed'. The sectarianism a fictional scenario describing what "Clean Break" predicted (and hoped for), and -- to the extent any strife exists along religious lines --- it's manufactured hostilities.)

Malaki also wants to privatize their oil, put it up for grabs. Al-Sadr and every other pro-Iraq Iraqi wants it kept as Iraq's oil (national treasure) to do with as the wish, maybe even to privatize in the future if they choose, after the occupation is over. Then they can decide, democratically.

This info fills in the puzzle. I already knew that Israel's "Clean Break" plan, Brezezinski's Grand Chessboard, and the PNAC "New American Century" plan were each committed to dividing up Iraq and dividing up the rest of the Middle East via destabilizing it politically.

Dividing up Iraq could not have worked out for the separatists. "How can you do that?", people asked, because there was Sunnis and Shiites mixed in the south and Sunnis and Shiites mixed in the middle (and others). Raed has Sunni and Shiite friends, but religious and ethnic history is a non-issue, for him and for most Iraqis (it's always possible to find/create a minority bloc of assholes). First they had to engineer the ethnic cleansing of the population via terror, divide up the once-homogeneous populace. Then, try to turn these "facts on the ground" into a solid political outcome.

The speaker was astute about US politics, and US history, and a bit humorous, humble. (I suspect he knew more about US history, like the Civil War and race/religious relations, than many of the American attendees.) He seemed to understand that we Americans were all fooled, and did not hold that against us. He talked about how the Republican voters are told about how we have to "fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here", while the Democratic liberal voters get a kind of marketing for a kinder, more humanitarian, US occupation or multi-national or UN occupation, a sacrifice to save the Iraqis from slaughtering each other.

Well, it's all bullshit, obviously. But this appears to be the details of the bullshit. Almost everyone takes the idea of Sunni/Shiite civil war at face value, even if they think that Americans should leave and let them slaughter each other.

The U.S. has stepped up its involvement in the intra-Shiite militia fighting in southern Iraq in recent days, air bombing several targets. The Bush administration is supporting the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (ISCI) and the Badr militia, which are aligned with the Iraqi government, against Muqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army.

On Fox News Sunday today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said the U.S. support was necessary to tame Iranian influence in Iraq:

Now we have a battle with militias who are operating outside the government. … We must win this fight. The militias that we are fighting are backed by Iran. So this is an effort by Iran to destabilize Iraq.

Graham is trying to oversimplify the situation. In reality, the U.S. is helping bolster Iran’s influence by injecting itself into this fight. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) explained:

The Iranians have close associations with all the Shia communities, not only with Sadr but also Hakim. … The notion that this is fight by American allies against Iranian-inspired elements is not accurate.

Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations noted the (ruling council) ISCI “was essentially created by Iran, and its militia, the Badr Brigade, was trained and equipped by the Revolutionary Guards” — which the Bush administration calls a “terrorist” organization.

Journalist Gareth Porter added the Badr militia is the “most pro-Iranian political-military forces in Iraq.” In fact, ISCI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim “met with [Iranian Revolutionary Guard] officers to be his guests in December 2006, apparently to discuss military assistance to the Badr Organisation.”

Graham, underscoring his cluelessness about the situation on the ground right now, added that “the Badr brigade is not the problem.” Graham seems to be supporting an effort to fight Iran by supporting Iran.

actually, the comments here got it mostly right:
this is retarded. maliki has more linkage to iran than sadr.
------
Note to warmongers: Cut the bullshit!

Who has closest ties to Iranian government? al-Sadr an extreme nationalist, whos political wing are cooperating with Sunni parties?

A fundamental point concerns Iraqi nationalist vs. soft separatist views, with attending interests of public vs. private control of oil resources. The violence at this time has political implications; Elections held today would favor a nationalist gain, which, by the way, is resistant to outside influence from either Iran or the United States, and is a voice calling for the exit of U.S. forces. Muqtada al-Sadr’s truce was the major cause of the downturn in violence, not the ‘Surge’.

------
It has always been the great irony of the occupation of Iraq that “our” man in Baghdad is also Tehran’s. Maliki heads the Dawa Party, which has long enjoyed close ties to Iran, and relies on support from SIIC, a staunchly pro-Iranian party, and its powerful Badr militia.

My email comment
(And some people thought me "silly" to say that Al-Qaeda is STILL and has always been a US proxy army, yet the Al-Qaeda religious nutcases (rank and file) are doing precisely what the US ruling elite wants. Al-Qaeda has always done precisely what the US elites wanted --- including a Sept 11 bloodbath in New York (though they were clearly only patsies and "extras" on the set), which was written down as a GOAL of the US elites in 1999-2000 and earlier -- and there's still a visible record of where it was written down! That is why all the Al-Qaeda broadcast transmissions of Zawahiri, studio quality like Fox or MTV, are "distributed" (i.e. created) by Intellcenter in Virginia, down the road from CIA. This is why a known Al-Qaeda operative (Ali Mohamed) was recruited to serve in the US Army at Fort Bragg after killing Sadat, and "no one could control his movements" according to his Captain, and when he was arrested by Canada, the FBI sprung for his release, despite his involvement in EVERY major Al-Qaeda attack on US properties. Gotta break a few American eggs to make an omelet, I guess. This is why lawyer Chertoff defended an Al-Qaeda operative in New Jersey and got his case thrown out, it's why the FBI counter-terrorism director who blocked his staff's investigations got promoted, it's why James Baker blocked an anti-Al-Qaeda lawsuit brought by the victims, etc. etc.)

Anyone got a better reason why US goals (not to say Republican goals, since the DLC has the same elitist banking bosses) coincide so closely with all of Al-Qaeda's actions?? Serendipity? LUCK (in Michael Ledeen's language)?!

You've seen the reports on TV about the fighting going on in Basra and the surrounding area? You do realize that the fighting is between two groups of Shia? There is no background given on American TV on exactly who is fighting whom and for what... American Goy to the rescue!

Quick info on the background and what's going on now: almost 100% of Iran and the majority of Iraqi population is Shia. Saddam was Sunni, and he staffed his government with Sunni people. (Not quite true according to Iraqi Raed. It was mixed.) The Army, and especially the Republican Guard, and the secret police were majority Sunni. (Maybe true.)
(Raed said that Saddam was NOT really a Sunni govt, though his "SS" may have been all Sunni -- family and kin -- Tikrit region -- that makes sense, that's how a lot of the top CIA eschelon works too, family and friends)

The system was designed to keep the majority Shia (and minority Kurds) down - by torture, massacres, etc. While Iran is Shia, the rest of the Arab world is Sunni, and so they ALL supported Saddam's efforts to keep the Shia down and the Sunni's in charge.

Now, opposing Saddam and the Sunnis were the Kurds, and the Shia. After the US invasion, the Sunnis were the most active guerrillas fighting the US presence in country, but recently they were literally paid off using US taxpayer money. US soldiers simply started to give large sums of money to the Sunni leaders in exchange for them not shooting Americans anymore. It worked... somewhat (Americans are of course still targeted, because they are occupying a foreign country etc).

The Shia are divided into two main groups: the Muqtada al-Sadr faction and the Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim faction.

Here's the kicker.

al-Sadr is anti American, true, but he is mostly anti-FOREIGN influence in Iraq. That includes Iranians, also. Basically, if he had an official slogan, it would be: "Iraq for Iraqis (and everyone else fuck off!)". While he fought the US military a few years ago (Cindy Sheehan's son was killed in that Shia uprising) al-Sadr decided on a unilateral declaration of peace. His "army" simply ceased guerrilla operations. His faction is not represented in the Iraqi government.

Hakim, on the other hand, IS well represented in the Iraqi government; in fact, he has the largest Shia bloc in the Iraqi parliament. His Badr organization is present in the so called Iraqi Army, in fact it is infiltrated with Badr personnel. Hakim's Shia faction is OPENLY pro-Iranian - this explains why president Ahmadinejad was so warmly welcomed by the Iraqi government a few days ago - because the government in Iraq, led by the (Shia) minister Maliki, is VERY friendly to Iran. You do not see (the anti-American, spawn of Satan, enemy of humanity according to American TV) al-Sadr warmly embrace Ahmadinejad, do you now? But Hakim's man, Prime Minister Maliki, was gushing as he welcomed Ahmadinejad to Baghdad.

Think of Hakam's Badr corps organization as an Iranian version of our American pro-Israel lobby AIPAC - only armed and with their own army in country.

Considering that many leaders (and common civilians) in Israel probably DO want the USA to attack/destroy Iran --- and considering that Bush appointed a puppet govt that in Iraq that everyone knows has ALWAYS been a pro-Iranian govt dependent on Iranian support (although conducive to Israel's interests of instability and breakdown of Iraq) --- it may very well be that the "Trilateralist branch" (for lack of a better word) of the US elites simply "harnessed" Israeli political support/pressure for the Iraq War (the way that Chalabi said he intended to woo the Israelis with a pipeline and then kick them to the curb), but these real elites (not the cartoonish Neo-Con evil guys) had always maintained the outlook of Thomas Barnett and Brzezinski and other "Realists" that
a) Iran is a natural ally of the USA
b) Iran is who must rule the Middle East on our behalf.

This would essentially mean a double-cross of at least some of the Israelis and Israel-advocates. Some of them obviously know the real story! It's their region! They are not without Intelligence, nor intelligence. Some of them probably only got the part of the story that was meant for their consumption.

This possibly boils down to a double-cross of a large chunk of the Israeli leadership if they sincerely thought the US was anti-Iran, unless the leaders all knew that they had to go along with supporting the US on this charade, in order to continue to extort money to torment the Palestinians, and only the Israeli public is getting mindfucked in the dark.

MAYBE. If we are mentally and emotionally immature, or if we are animal brutes.

To the extent that the mindset of the majority of the public, or even a large, loud minority, operates on the basis of greed, jealousy, selfishness, etc., we doomed to never get our shit together to share and care, and especially, we can easily be manipulated endlessly by provocation upon provocation.

MIND CONTROL and PROPAGANDA and ADVERTISING and COVERT OPERATIONS works not by secret brainwave weapons so much as manipulating masses based on their own selfish desires and their own selfish fears. We get "hornswoggled" and "bamboozled" by our own affected gullibility. I've yet to read the PDF I dl'd by Edward Bernays, but from what I know of him, I'm quite sure that this is his explanation, as the Father of Modern Propaganda. You don't try to re-create human nature from scratch. You harness it, manipulate what already exists, you play judo with it, use it's own weight against it. A little OODA thrown in to the battle plan, overwhelm the enemy and confuse him, "get inside his decision-making loop".

Again, do we REALLY need Father Figure elites to run our lives? It's their "success" that gives them the right to do so, in contradiction to actual democracy.

The Brave NEW World is a lot like the Brave OLD World. Although specifically about the Pinkerton's, this was about Elite vs. Commoner strife, and how the role of the ideology of the Sanctity of Private Property (comparing toothbrushes and personal homes to multi-national corporations), and it's deep embeddedness in Law and Legal Frameworks, and in the culture, obscured rather obvioius and direct questions of morality, and incidentally was designed to produce a "free" pauper class working for a "free" capitalist class. (No, I'm not fighting for community toothbrushes. Certainly, more than a lucky handful should benefit from all the machines we have produced over generations, and from their own inbred political power.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were saying the same thing, when you boil it down. Both of them wanted to stop the creative person from being ripped off. Marx saw the thief as the financial guy-- the one with the capital who take the intellectual property and claims it. Rand saw the thief as the government guy-- who just takes the intellectual property because he can.

So what do we need now? Who is the thief?_________________"All major crime is an inside job."

Considering that many leaders (and common civilians) in Israel probably DO want the USA to attack/destroy Iran --- and considering that Bush appointed a puppet govt that in Iraq that everyone knows has ALWAYS been a pro-Iranian govt dependent on Iranian support (although conducive to Israel's interests of instability and breakdown of Iraq) --- it may very well be that the "Trilateralist branch" (for lack of a better word) of the US elites simply "harnessed" Israeli political support/pressure for the Iraq War (the way that Chalabi said he intended to woo the Israelis with a pipeline and then kick them to the curb), but these real elites (not the cartoonish Neo-Con evil guys) had always maintained the outlook of Thomas Barnett and Brzezinski and other "Realists" that
a) Iran is a natural ally of the USA
b) Iran is who must rule the Middle East on our behalf.

Iran is going to be one of the new "bogie men" used by the U.S. to keep Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the other gulf states in line.

Incidentally dilbert-g--that was a great post. This kind of real information is badly needed._________________"All major crime is an inside job."

But the rising trend has been in evidence since the lowest ever casualty
rate four months ago in December, 2007. Our graph shows the huge daily
fatality rate during the surge, as the resistance battled the U.S. for key
areas of Iraq, and a sloppy deployment gave them unexpected soft targets.

Quote:

The resistance then scaled back operations to regroup, refit and sensibly
wait out the deployment --which was a last ditch, time-buying exercise
that could not be militarily sustained.

For the next year that upward trend is set to continue as political and
military circumstances tilt the advantage to the resistance._________________Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.

Last edited by Fintan on Thu May 01, 2008 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Monday March 10 - 34 dead
Including Dr Khalid Nasir, the only neurosurgeon in Basra; sheikh Thair Ibrahim and his five-year-old niece, killed by a female suicide bomber; 10 people killed by a suicide bomber; and a mother and son killed by gunmen.

Tuesday March 11 - 90 dead
Including a couple kidnapped the week before; 16 members of a family returning from a funeral, killed by a roadside bomb; three killed in a US air strike; and 20 people whose bodies were found in a mass grave.

Wednesday March 12 - 24 dead
Including a 10-year-old girl killed by US forces; five shot and beheaded at a checkpoint; and three truck drivers killed in a roadside bomb.

Thursday March 13 - 39 dead
Including a journalist killed by gunmen; 18 people killed by a car bomb in Baghdad; a 15-year-old girl shot dead by police; and Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho.

Friday March 14 - 15 dead
Including ex-footballer Munther Khalaf, killed outside his home by a group of armed men; a street sweeper killed by a roadside bomb; an Iraqi interpreter, killed by a suicide bomber; and the son of the chief of al-Kharaj tribes, killed during a raid by joint forces.

Saturday March 15 - 19 dead
Including Hussein Awda, killed by gunmen; three brothers; and an Iraqi contractor, Athir Ibrahim.

Sunday March 16 - 26 dead
Including two policemen killed in an armed assault and 16 others whose bodies were found, including that of an 11-year-old boy.

(Via WSJ Law Blog) In Friday's Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin previewed the cases of Mohammad Munaf and Shawqi Omar, two U.S. citizens now being held by the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq, pending transfer to Iraqi authorities. Or are they? The key question in the case is whether these men are actually being held by the U.S. Government — or whether they are being held by a Multi-National Force, acting pursuant to a U.N. mandate, not subject to the jurisdiction of federal courts. That question will be argued on Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the WSJ:

The government cites a postinvasion Security Council resolution on the reconstruction of Iraq to assert that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and his troops serve in an international army that "is legally distinct from the U.S. military."

I told my uber-patriot friend it was bullshit that the troops were fighting "for America" or "for our freedom". WELL ... the government agrees with me.
I sent out something a while ago from a Gun Rights group that asserted that Americans DO NOT UNDERSTAND what is happening, and we are legally being put into an International architecture without our knowledge or consent.
They also said that our military is being sold on the idea of patriotism and serving the USA, while legally they are serving an international org that is working to END the USA.
Is that not TREASON?
http://www.libertygunrights.com/CritiqueEO%2013286.html
This says they are putting a military command structure over the civilian govt, but not only that, it's a
Worldwide Military Command and Control Systems

According to Petraeus, the People of the United States will not be permitted to vote their way out of this war. No matter what.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13286

Issued February 28, 2003 by George W. Bush
An Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions,
in Connection with the Transfer of Certain Functions
to the Secretary of Homeland Security

The government is relying on a 1948 precedent in which the Supreme Court rejected a similar petition from former leaders of Imperial Japan convicted by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The court said that body was "not a tribunal of the United States" but rather an "agent of the Allied Powers."

Lawyers for the men say it's a "formalistic fiction" to claim the U.S. military in Iraq is a U.N. force. Lower courts have split on the question, with one panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia siding with the government against Mr. Munaf, and a different panel ruling against the government and for Mr. Omar.

David Kaye, a State Department lawyer during the first years of the Iraq war, says the resolution authorizing "a multinational force" to help stabilize Iraq was developed at the urging of smaller countries serving under U.S. command. "It was purely as cover for others, not for us," he says. "For us to go back and say it displaced our normal control and command authority is just wrong." Mr. Kaye now heads the international human-rights program at the UCLA School of Law.